THE FAR WEST DISSENTERS AND THE
GAMBLERS AT VICKSBURG:An Examination of the Documentary Evidence and
Historical Context of Sidney Rigdon's Salt Sermon

John E. Thompson

Taken from Restoration 5 (Jan. 1986):21-27. Used by permission of author
with minor editorial revision.

On Sunday, June 17,
1838, not quite two full years after the lynching of the Vicksburg gamblers, Sidney Rigdon, at
the time a member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
preached his fiery and controversial Salt Sermon in Far West, Caldwell County,
Missouri.1 The sermon was so named because Rigdon used as his text these
familiar words from the Sermon on the Mount:

"Ye are the salt
of the
earth; but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for
nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of
men."2

Sidney interpreted this
familiar text in an extremely harsh fashion, implying, if not declaring outright, that prominent
dissenters like Oliver Cowdery, the Whitmer family and Lyman E. Johnson, who had remained
among the Saints at Far West after their excommunication, deserved to die like the Vicksburg
gamblers. As James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard have put it: "In his direct and powerful way,
President Rigdon applied the text to the dissenters, and the implication was obvious. They must
either leave or face the consequences."3Brigham H. Roberts
explained: "The doctrine of the text the speaker applied to the dissenting brethren and intimated
that the 'trodden under foot of men' should be literal, much to the scandalizing of the church,
since the dissenters made capital of it to prejudice the minds of the non-'Mormons' of the
surrounding counties."4While no manuscript of
this "thinly veiled threat to the dissenters"5 has survived in Rigdon's own
hand (if indeed there ever was one), nonetheless, a number of witnesses to this sermon recorded
their own recollections of its contents within a few months or years of the actual event, in some
cases under oath. There is no evidence that there was collusion between them in the preparation
of their remarks, and, yet, they largely agree, both on the date the sermon was preached and the
essentials of its contents. There is virtually unanimous agreement, for example, not only that
Rigdon based his sermon on Matthew 5:13, quoted above, but also that he applied the text to the
dissenters in Far West in such a way that the Saints should remove them from their midst.While many of the
extant reports of Rigdon's Salt Sermon were from Saints who had apostatized before giving their
testimony, their comments are supported by the witness of an important primary source from
within the Church itself, newly available, "The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith
Jr."6 In view of new evidence from this faithful source (and some other newly
discovered sources as well), an updating and revision of the what can be said about the Salt
Sermon is long overdue as well as a study of its historical background.It is extremely rare when
a historic event, such as the Salt Sermon, is witnessed to by so many good sources so close to the
event itself in time. Of course, not all of these are of equal value. Some of these sources were (or
claimed to be) eyewitnesses. Others were merely retelling the story as they had heard or read
from others. All of these sources taken together demonstrate how widely the story of the Salt
Sermon had spread and how rapidly it had done so. All of these sources deserve to be carefully
re-examined, especially in view of an attitude of skepticism regarding the historicity of this
extremely important Sermon. The problem, then, with any study of the Salt Sermon is the
richness, not the paucity, of the evidence.Witnesses prior to the
conclusion of 1844 in support of the Salt Sermon, whether written or given as oral testimony
under oath, whether published at the time or later, include: Jedediah M. Grant in his
Collection
of Facts, (1844); John Cook Bennett, in
History of the Saints (1842); William Harris in Mormonism Portrayed
(1841); George
Montgomery West (1841); Practical Christian and Church Chronicle (1841); John
Corrill in his
Brief History (1838); Reed Peck both in his
1839 manuscript and, earlier still, in his testimony at the Preliminary Hearing of the case against
Joseph Smith, before Judge Austin A. King in November of 1838; John Whitmer's
History; John
Cleminson in that same Preliminary Hearing in November 1838; and Danite Brigadier General
Sampson Avard, also in the Preliminary Hearing. In addition, there is the account of the Salt
Sermon by George W. Robinson, in "The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith Jr." written in either
July or August of 1838, just a month or two after the event. The following examination of
these sources proceeds in reverse of chronological order.

Jedediah M. Grant

Shortly after Joseph and
Hyrum Smith were killed in the Carthage jail on June 27, 1844, Sidney Rigdon returned to
Nauvoo, Illinois, and unsuccessfully put himself forward as "Guardian, or Spokesman, or Head"
over the Church.7 Soon after, Rigdon was excommunicated from the church and
returned to Pittsburgh where he became the leader of another Mormon
movement.6Jedediah M. Grant soon
after published A Collection of Facts Relative to the Course Taken by
Elder Sidney Rigdon. This work was intended to serve as a defense of the church's actions
in
excommunicating Rigdon. Grant, who had joined the Mormons in 1833 and had been ordained a
Seventy in 1835 and had resided with the Saints in Missouri,9 said the following
regarding the
Salt Sermon:

"In June he
preached
what he called his 'Salt Sermon,' in which he called the dissenters the salt that had lost its savor,
hence, said he, 'they are good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot.' The
dissenters made capital of his sermon, using it to prejudice the people in the adjoining counties
against the Saints..."10

All of this is relatively
accurate, but it is not clear how or where Grant obtained this information: by hearing Rigdon
preach, by hearsay or published materials available before his account was written. Though he
could have been an eyewitness, he does not claim to have been one. Nor does he here give much
of the contents of the sermon, perhaps to save space since he had no reason to spare apostate
Rigdon from embarrassment. For all its shortcomings, particularly its brevity, Grant's account
goes far, not only to establish that Rigdon preached the Sermon in June of 1838, but also that
faithful leadership inside the church admitted the facts of the matter publicly as late as 1844
whenever it suited their purpose to do so.

William Harris and John C. Bennett

In May of 1842, John C.
Bennett, Major General of the Nauvoo Legion, Quartermaster General of the Illinois State
Militia, Mayor of the City of Nauvoo, Chancellor of the University of the City of Nauvoo, and
member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered
in that city, resigned all his offices as well as his membership in the church and
departed.11 Shortly thereafter, he began publishing in the Sangamo
Journal (a Whig paper published in Springfield, Illinois, which probably published the
materials because
the Saints were Democratic)? he expose of what he viewed as the degradation of Joseph Smith,
Jr., the man Bennett called derisively "Old White Hat."12 Later that year,
Bennett expanded the Sangamo Journal articles to create his History of the
Saints. Thus it was that while
Bennett had joined the Church in 1840, and an 1841 revelation called
him to assist the Prophet, in 1842 he apostatized and publicly attacked
Joseph.13Not surprisingly,
Bennett's book contained an account of Sidney Rigdon's Salt Sermon. Since Bennett himself was
obviously not an eyewitness to this event, he quoted from an anti-Mormon book, William Harris'
Mormonism Portrayed, published in Warsaw, Illinois, in 1841.14
Harris
himself had dwelt among the Mormons in Missouri.15 He could even have been
present in Far West when the Sermon was preached, though his account nowhere makes such a
claim. Later he apostatized, which no doubt was part of the reason Bennett used Harris so freely
in his own work.Thomas C. Sharp, the
editor of the Warsaw Signal, later claimed that he wrote at least a portion of the
book.16
Even those parts of the book which Sharp wrote (or edited if he overstated his role)
were based on materials supplied by William Harris. Thus, the Harris account of the Salt Sermon
is ultimately based on William Harris himself. And Bennett's History of the Saints is
dependent,
not on Bennett's veracity, but rather on William Harris.These, then, are the
words of William Harris, an important and early witness, published less than four years after
Rigdon preached the Sermon (possibly touched up by Thomas Sharp):

"About this
time, Rigdon
preached his famous 'salt sermon.' The text was--'ye are the salt of the Earth, but if the salt have
lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted; it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out,
and to be trodden under foot of men.' He informed the Mormons that the church was the salt; that
the dissenters were the salt that had lost its savor, and that they were literally to be trodden under
the feet of the church, until their bowels should be gushed out. In order to give weight to this
interpretation, he attempted to sustain his position from the Bible! He referred to the case of
Judas, informing the people that he did not fall headlong and his bowels gush out, without
assistance, but that the Apostles threw him and with their feet trampled them out! He said that
Ananias and Sapphira his wife, did not fall down dead, as translated: but that Peter and John slew
them, and the young men, or deacons, carried them out and buried
them."17

There is no evidence that
Harris borrowed this account from the Court Testimony of Reed Peck, which already had been
published entirely more than once (not to count partial reprintings such as may be found in
Bennett's History of the Saints).18 It is also most unlikely that he
borrowed the
story from Reed Peck's as yet unpublished manuscript. For, Harris differed at points with Reed
Peck in a way that a mere reteller of the tale would not have dared to. For example, Harris
attributed the statement about Peter hanging Judas to Sidney Rigdon (elsewhere universally
attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith). This little detail, whether the result of faulty memory by
Harris or Sharp's editorial work, does not seem to be the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The wrong person is remembered as having made the statement, but the statement itself was
accurately recalled, an error of a minor sort.Later, John C. Bennett
borrowed his account of the Salt Sermon directly from William Harris' version, as stated above.
Harris could have been an eyewitness to the sermon being preached in 1838, but nowhere in his
account does he claim to have been. This could have been the result of Thomas Sharp's editing
process. At any rate, this is an early witness to the Salt Sermon and a good one. Even in Gentile
Illinois, the story of the Salt Sermon was well known by the year 1842.

George Montgomery West

In March of 1842, less
than four years after the date of Rigdon's sermon, Rev. Dr. George Montgomery West, an
evangelical minister, published Analysis of the Rev. Dr. West's Lectures and Arguments
against
Infidelity and Other False Theories. West spoke of the Salt Sermon in a typically
anti-Mormon
fashion, as evidence against the divinity of the Mormon movement. Thus, West particularly
emphasized that the Prophet had endorsed Rigdon's remarks by informing the Saints that Peter,
in a similar situation, hung Judas.19 While this is more evidence that the story of
Rigdon's Salt Sermon was widely known at that time, even among the Gentiles, it adds nothing
to our knowledge of the Sermon itself. Rev. Dr. West was obviously not an eyewitness to the
sermon. West did not tell us what sources he used, so it is futile to speculate. It is possible that
West had read Reed Peck's court testimony or William Harris, but there are so many possibilities
that it is impossible to be certain.

Practical Christian and Church Chronicle

The Practical Christian
and Church Chronicle, an evangelical magazine published in New Haven, Connecticut, ran
an
account of the Mormon troubles in Missouri in their April 16, 1841, issue. This admittedly
unsympathetic account (apparently borrowed from either the Baptist Advocate or Episcopal
Recorder) also mentioned the Salt Sermon. As was the case with Rev. Dr. West, this account
particularly emphasized the remarks of the Prophet after Rigdon had completed the sermon:

"Smith was
present, and
followed Rigdon. He spoke of the fate of Judah [Judas], and said that PETER had hung him,
(more Mormon translating;) and said that he approved of Mr Rigdon's
sermon...."20

While this derivative
account is less valuable for determining what Rigdon actually said than an eyewitness,
nonetheless, its early date gives it a certain value of its own.

Reed Peck

Unlike the Chronicle and
Dr. West, Reed Peck was an eyewitness to the preaching of the Salt Sermon. Peck, soon after
leaving the Church, began writing a manuscript history on September 18, 1839, in Quincy,
Illinois. This manuscript was first published in 1899, after Peck was
dead.21Peck had been a
Latter-day Saint in the State of Missouri in 1838, residing in Far West. He left the faith after the
Missouri troubles and lived out the remainder of his days in Quincy, Illinois. In the manuscript,
Peck had this to say about the salt sermon:

"All their
measures were
strenuously opposed by John Correll and T. B. Marsh one of the twelve apostles of the church
and in consequence nothing could be effected until the matter was taken up publicly by the
presidency the Sunday following (June 17th) in the presence of a large congregation-S. Rigdon
took his text from the fifth chapter of Matthew 'Ye are the salt of the Earth but if the salt have
lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted, it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out
and trodden under foot of men' From this scripture he undertook to prove that when men embrace
the gospel and afterwards lose their faith it is the duty of the Saints to trample them under their
feet. He informed the people that they had a set of men among them that had dissented from the
church and were doing all in their power to destroy the presidency laying plans to take their lives
&c., accused them of counterfeiting lying cheating and numerous other crimes and called on
the people to rise en masse and rid the county of such a nuisance. He said it is the duty of this
people to trample them into the earth and if the county cannot be freed from them any other way
I will assist to trample them down or to erect a gallows on the square of Far West and hang them
up as they did the gamblers at Vicksburgh and it would be an act at which the angels would smile
with approbation Joseph Smith in a short speech sanctioned what had been said by Rigdon
though said he I don't what [want] the brethren to act unlawfully but will tell them one thing Judas
was a traitor and in stead of hanging himself was hung by Peter, and with this hint the subject was
dropped for the day having created great excitement and prepared the people to execute anything
that should be proposed."22

Reed Peck's account has
all the earmarks of a careful eyewitness. Unlike William Harris, he properly attributed the
remarks to the correct speakers, while casually adding the sort of casual details only a careful
eyewitness would have been able to recall. Peck along of all witnesses to the Salt Sermon (and
only in his unpublished manuscript, which explains why none of the later accounts based on his
court testimony has it) remembered that Rigdon spoke of hanging the dissenters up "as they did
the gamblers at Vicksburgh."23 And yet, it is that important allusion which helps
us now to better understand the historical context of Sidney Rigdon's Salt Sermon as never
before.Rigdon was not merely
making idle threats that day. He was actively trying to so frighten the dissenters that they would
leave Far West lest a worse fate befall them.24 Rigdon was alluding to an early
American lynching, the hanging of five professional gamblers in Vicksburg, Mississippi, on July
6, 1835.25Gambling was a very
profitable business along the Mississippi in the 1830s and most towns up and downriver had
their gambling halls. Vicksburg was no exception to that trend. In fact, one of the most infamous
of all gambling dens of the period was Vicksburg's Kangaroo.26 There had been
legal efforts to shut it down as early as 1832, but to no avail.27 But if the law as
impotent in Warren County at the time to deal with the Kangaroo and other dens of iniquity,
there were other means available to obtain justice -- by lynch law.What Vicksburg needed
most, however, was a catalyst to move her citizens to extralegally remove the gamblers from
their midst. That catalyst was a party of the Vicksburg Volunteers on July 4, which had been
invaded by an uninvited and most gloriously drunken gambler named Burt Cabler.28
Cabler was quickly ejected from the gathering, but, later on, after dinner he returned, still
drunk, but armed and swearing revenge for the earlier insult.29 Quickly, certain
Volunteers grabbed him. Almost as quickly the citizens realized that, since Cabler had broken no
law, but could not be trusted not to kill or hurt someone if set free, he would have to be dealt
with extralegally.Cabler was taken to the
outskirts of Vicksburg and given a form of punishment that most Mormons will recall was given
to their own prophet in Ohio a couple of years earlier. Cabler was whipped, tarred and feathered
and ordered to be out of the city within forty-eight hours.30 Not too surprisingly,
they never saw Cabler again.The citizens were not
content to let the matter drop at that. There were still many other professional gamblers in
Vicksburg, many of whom were extremely angry when they learned what had just happened to
Burt Cabler. Thus, it was that on the evening of July 4, "a mass meeting of the Vicksburg
citizens was called at the Court House."31A committee was
appointed to deal with the matter led by Dr. Hugh Bodley, a local physician.32
Resolutions were adopted by these citizens which gave the gamblers 24 hours to leave
the city. All of these actions were taken outside the proper legal channels and apart from the
forms of Government instituted in Warren County. This sort of behavior of course parallels that
of the "Secret Constitution" in Jackson County, which expelled the Saints from Zion in the fall of
1833.33 And it is also similar to what the Mormons did to the dissenters after the
Salt Sermon.Thus, it was that 100
notices were posted around Vicksburg the following day which declared:

"NOTICE

"At a meeting of the
citizens of Vicksburg on Saturday the 4th day of July it was"Resolved, That a notice
be given to all professional GAMBLERS, that the citizens of Vicksburg are resolved to exclude
them from this pace and its vicinity, and that twenty-four hours notice be given them to leave the
place."Resolved, That all
persons permitting Faro dealing in their houses, be also notified, that they will be prosecuted
therefor."Resolved, That one
hundred copies of the foregoing resolutions be printed and stuck up at the corners of the streets,
and the publication be deemed notice."Vicksburg, July 5,
1835."34

Not surprisingly,
most of the gamblers quickly left town. But some ignored the warning. On the morning of July 6,
a crowd of about 400 people, including the Volunteers and a number of prominent citizens
marched out to the gambling halls and destroyed all the gaming equipment that had been left
behind by the gamblers.35 Finally, they came to the notorious Kangaroo. There
five gamblers, led by John North, had positioned themselves, determined not to leave.36
The Vicksburg folks surrounded the Kangaroo. Dr. Bodley went out to ask them to
vacate the premises. The gamblers fired several shots and the physician was
killed.37Quickly, the citizens
seized the five gamblers. Soon, they "swung off without benefit of clergy or ceremony" from a
tree.38 The names of the five unfortunates were given in the Vicksburg Register
of July 9, 1835, as North, Hullams, "Dutch Bill," Smith and McCall.39 For the
next twenty days, Vicksburg was placed under the control of the vigilantes and the city of
Vicksburg was set free of gambling for decades.40In just a short time, news
of this incident was applauded or condemned by newspapers as far away as London,
England."41 Nile's Weekly Register, a highly respected, widely read
and widely
quoted newspaper of the period, told the story in their August 1 and August 8 issues. Sidney
Rigdon undoubtedly could have heard of such an infamous incident from any number of
imaginable sources at the time.The fate of the
Vicksburg gamblers quickly became almost a byword for anyone coming to an untimely end by a
lynch mob. The Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy was the editor of an Abolitionist newspaper in Alton,
Illinois. On November 7, 1837, less than a year before Rigdon's Salt Sermon, was killed by
citizens opposing his views of slavery. Just a short time before his death, Lovejoy spoke these
fateful words almost predicting his fate:

"Why should I
flee from
Alton? Is this not a free state?...Have I not the right to claim the protection of its laws? What
more can I have in any other place?...you may hang me up, as the mob hung up the
individuals at Vicksburg! You may burn me at the stake, as they did McIntosh at St. Louis, or
you may tar and feather me, or throw me into the Mississippi, as you have threatened to do; but
you cannot disgrace me. I, and I alone, can disgrace myself; and the deepest of all
disgrace would be at a time like this to deny my Master by forsaking his
cause."42

This, then, is the story of
the Vicksburg gamblers. It not only illumines the background of the Salt Sermon, but it also fits
its text perfectly. While Peck could have put this saying in Rigdon's mouth, it is probably what
Sidney actually said on the occasion. It is significant that, not only did Rigdon speak of putting
up a gallows on the square of Far West, but also Joseph Smith endorsed Rigdon's comments by
stating that would be following in the path of Peter by hanging Judases in their own midst.
According to Peck, then, Rigdon declared outright that the dissenters in their midst ought to be
lynched by the Saints as the Vicksburg gamblers had and, that if they were not, he would do it
himself.Of course, at the same
time, it must likewise be stated that Rigdon did not prefer violent methods. Like those in
Vicksburg, he might have preferred they leave town peaceably. But, if brute force did become
necessary, he hoped the matter would be concluded by the Mormon's own equivalent of the
vigilantes, the newly formed secret organization of Jared Carter, the Brother of Gideon, later
called the Danites.43The historicity of Reed
Peck's manuscript is further enhanced for another reason. It states that Rigdon accused the
dissenters "of counterfeiting lying cheating and numerous other crimes." Just two days after the
Salt Sermon, 83 Mormon citizens of Caldwell County sent a letter to five prominent Far West
dissenters (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman F.
Johnson). This letter gave a lengthy recitation of the crimes of these dissenters including "a
general system of stealing, counterfeiting, cheating, and burning property as at
Kirtland."44 For these very reasons among others, the signers declared, not
at all unlike the Vicksburg vigilantes, "we will put you from the county of Caldwell: so help us
God."45 Whether or not these accusations were true, they had their desired effect.
Soon after, a number of these dissenters left town.Reed Peck also states in
the manuscript that, one week after the Salt Sermon, which would have been June 24, 1838,
Sidney Rigdon preached again in Far West. There must have been criticism of both the Salt
Sermon and the expulsion of the dissenters, because this second sermon may be characterized as
a defense of these actions. Once again, according to Peck, Sidney Rigdon mentioned as an
illustration the lynching of the Vicksburg gamblers:

"On the Sunday
succeeding the flight of the dissenters, S. Rigdon in a public discourse explained
SATISFACTORITY [sic] no doubt to the people the principles of republicanism After informing
them as an introduction that 'Sone certain characters in the place had been crying "you have
broken the law you have acted contrary to the principles of republicanism" he said that 'when a
county, or body of people have individuals among them with whom they do not wish to associate
and a public expression is taken against their remaining among them and such individuals do not
remove it is the principle of republicanism itself that gives that community a right to expel them
forcibly and no law will prevent it' He also said that it was not against the principles of
republicanism for the people to hang the gamblers in Vicksburgh [sic] as it was a matter in which
they unanimously acted."46

Not only does Peck's
account of the Salt Sermon seem authentic in its historical context, but it is in general terms
supported by Peck's testimony under oath in the Preliminary Hearing of the case against Joseph
Smith and others, in November of 1838, five months before his excommunication.47
This testimony, the holograph of which is still in Missouri, was printed at public expense
two times prior to February 15, 1841.48 This is the way he described Rigdon's
Salt Sermon before the court:

"The only
motive for
getting rid of the dissenters in this way, as far as I ever learned, was, that, if they remained
among the Mormons, they would introduce a class that would ultimately endanger their lives,
and destroy the church; and if suffered to go out from among them, they would be telling lies on
them in the surrounding country."These reasons I
gathered from Mr. Rigdon's Salt Sermon. And Mr Rigdon said, in the same sermon, that he
would assist to erect a gallows on the suare [square], and hang them all. Joseph Smith, jr., was
present, and followed Mr. Rigdon, after he had made the above declaration, and said he did not
wish to do anything unlawful. He then spoke of the fate of Judas, and said that Peter had hung
him, (Judas;) and said that he approved of Mr. Rigdon's sermon, and called it a good
sermon."And further this
deponent saith not."REED PECK."49

For these reasons,
we find Peck a truthful witness. On two occasions, once under oath, he told the same story. Even
on small details, such as who said that Peter hung Judas, he seems more accurate than even
William Harris' 1841 book. He was the only witness to the Sermon to recall that Rigdon
mentioned the crimes of the dissenters and the comments about the Vicksburg gamblers. At the
same time, Peck's truthfulness is supported in many respects by other testimony.

John Corrill

At about the same time
that Peck was writing his manuscript, John Corrill, formerly a counselor to the Presiding Bishop
of the Mormons in Missouri, and by 1839, a member of the Missouri Legislature, published his
volume A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints. In that work,
Corrill
outlined his reasons for leaving the church and it seems that he shared many of the same
concerns that had been central to Reed Peck's leaving the church behind. Corrill specifically
mentioned Smith and Rigdon's distaste for the excommunicated dissenters who dwelt in Far
West and he also outlined the methods, particularly the Salt Sermon, the church used to get rid of
them. This is how Corrill described the developing situation in Far West in June of 1838:

"The dissenters
kept up a
kind of secret opposition to the presidency and the church. They would occasionally speak
against them, influence the minds of the members against them, and occasionally correspond
with their enemies abroad, and the church, it was said, would never become pure unless these
dissenters were routed from among them. Moreover, if they were suffered to remain, they would
destroy the church."Secret meetings were
held, and plans contrived, how to get rid of them. Some had one plan, and some another, but
there was a backwardness in bringing it about, until President Rigden [Rigdon] delivered from the
pulpit what I call the salt sermon: 'If the salt have lost its savour, it is thenceforth good for
nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men,' was his text, and although he did
not call names in his sermon, yet, it was plainly understood that he meant that dissenters, of those
who had denied the faith, ought to be cast out, and literally trodden under foot. He, indirectly,
accused some of them with crime."This sermon had the
desired effect. Excitement was produced, in the church, and suffice it to say that, in three or four
days, several of the dissenters became much alarmed, and fled from the place in great fright, and
their families soon followed, but their property was attached for debt. Necessity compelled others
of the dissenters to confess and give satisfaction to the church. This scene I looked upon with
horror, and considered it as proceeding from a mob
spirit."50

Corrill, it should be
noted, also testified against Joseph Smith and the others at the preliminary hearing before Judge
Austin A. King in 1838, but he did not discuss the Salt Sermon in the testimony.

John Whitmer

The next witness to the
Salt Sermon we wish to call upon is John Whitmer. Whitmer had been appointed Church
Historian and had been told by revelation to "continue in writing and making a history of all the
important things which he shall observe and know concerning my church" (D & C 69:3).
This he continued to do even after his excommunication in 1838.Whitmer had also been a
member of the Presidency of Zion which had overseen ecclesiastical affairs in Northern Missouri
after the Prophet centered his activities in Kirtland, Ohio. Somewhat autonomous in operation,
perhaps too much so for its own good, the Zion Presidency was destroyed and its members
excommunicated, at the instigation of Apostles Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten, in the
first part of 1838.51In November of 1838,
John Whitmer [his name misspelled in the court documents as John Whitnear] also testified in
the preliminary hearing of the evidence against Joseph Smith and a number of others. Whitmer
briefly mentioned the Salt Sermon. (He devoted great attention to a meeting in April 1838 where
Joseph Smith had preached against those who spoke against the First Presidency, a reminiscence
confirmed by William W. Phelps' testimony.52) Whitmer's History, however, has
a fuller accounting which is again very early:

"Joseph Smith,
Jr., S.
Rigdon and Hyrum Smith moved their families to this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As
soon as they came here, they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissension
and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council of the leaders together, in
which council he stated that any person who said a word against the heads of the Church, should
be driven over these prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the
Gideonites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked designs. Thus on the 19th
of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites
understood that they should drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their
secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight
machinations."53

While Whitmer's history
and court testimony taken together would tell us little we did not already know about the Salt
Sermon from other sources, from these
we can state that Whitmer knew of it at the time, even though he had already been
excommunicated. However, as an apostate, it may be that John Whitmer may not have been
present at the meeting when Rigdon preached it. That could explain why Whitmer made no
attempt to give more of the contents of the sermon than its general, intent, unlike John Corrill
and Reed Peck.As for the Danites,
Whitmer here called them Gideonites, a name that would have been used in an early period of the
Danite band's history in honor of their leader, Jared Carter, the so-called "Brother of Gideon."
(Carter was soon after removed from that office, but his brother, indeed was Gideon H.
Carter.)54 But, the date that Whitmer gave for the sermon (June 19th) is wrong.
He must have confused the date of the Salt Sermon with the date the dissenters were warned by
83 citizens to leave two days afterwards. It would have been much more natural for the Salt
Sermon to have been preached on a Sunday. Nonetheless, Whitmer is certainly right to mention
Gideonites in the context of the Salt Sermon, for Leland H. Gentry rightly argues that the Danites
would have been organized in Caldwell County on or slightly before June 19,
1838.55

John Cleminson and Sampson Avard

Two other witnesses
mentioned the Salt Sermon under oath at the aforementioned Preliminary Hearing in November
of 1838, John Cleminson and Sampson Avard. Of the two, Cleminson's comments are less
significant, since he only claims to have heard the sermon and asserts that other witnesses who
had testified regarding it were accurate. He said:

"I heard Sidney
Rigdon's
sermon, commonly called the 'salt sermon,' and its purport and design was about as other
witnesses have stated before me."56

Since Cleminson adds
nothing to what we already know about the Salt Sermon and since he states he heard the
testimony of the others, this remark should be given no more weight than it deserves. All he
stated was that he heard the sermon and that the other witnesses had not misstated what it said.
There is no reason thereby to doubt Cleminson's veracity, since Cleminson certainly could have
heard the sermon precisely as he claimed as a Mormon resident of Far West during this period.
Cleminson had no need to lie under oath. And, while he unfortunately said nothing under oath
about what he heard, the other witnesses to the sermon would be more than enough without his
testimony.The second witness
was the notorious Dr. Sampson Avard, who had been Brigadier General of the Danites.57
Avard has often been treated as both a scapegoat and a traitor, a prime example of all that
had gone wrong with the Mormons in Missouri during this period (in stark contrast to the alleged
ignorance and innocence of the First Presidency of the church).58 It is true that
Avard turned State's evidence against the Prophet after his capture. But it seems extremely
unlikely Avard would have dared create and operate the Danites apart from the knowledge or
approval of the First Presidency. And it is impossible to continue to assert that Joseph Smith
knew nothing at all of the operations of the Danites. The evidence suggest that Joseph Smith,
while never under a Danite oath, was in a relationship of military command over them.59
Thus, Avard was not as responsible for the excesses of the Danites as the First
Presidency and his superior Generals. His only wrong, then, could be construed as breaking his
Danite oath, which, in view of the heinous nature of their crimes, may have been a higher
good.In Avard's testimony
under oath before Justice Austin A. King, in the Preliminary Hearing, he, like others, mentioned
the Salt Sermon of Rigdon:

"About the time
the
dissenters fled, President Rigdon preached a sermon from the text, 'Ye are the salt of the earth:
but if the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing,
but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men--' commonly called the salt sermon; in which
the dissenters were called the salt that had lost its savor, and that they should be trampled upon
and driven out by the saints: which was well understood by the Danites to be a part of their duty
to do."60

Exactly as John Whitmer
had, Avard testified the Danite band had been formed by the time of the Salt Sermon. And since
Reed Peck placed Avard as one of three founding members (the others being Jared Carter and
George W. Robinson), that testimony is important.61 Indeed, it is worth noting
that Leland H. Gentry agrees with Avard's testimony that the Danites began their existence at
about this time.62 The Salt Sermon Avard described correctly, then. One thing
that Avard made very clear, though is that Danites took it as their duty precisely to carry out the
mandate of the sermon. Two days after the Salt Sermon, the dissenters were sent a letter signed
by 83 Mormon citizens of Caldwell County including Hyrum Smith, Sampson Avard and a
number of identified Danites.63 O how quickly the dissenters, with a few
exceptions, left town! What Avard said in court is consistent with what else is known of the
period from other sources.

The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith, Jr.

The most important
primary source dealing with the Salt Sermon is "The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith Jr." The
"Scriptory Book" entry was most likely written in July or August of 1838, just a matter of weeks
after the Sermon was preached, making it the earliest written account of the event.64
In addition, the "Scriptory Book" during this period was recorded by First Presidency
scribe George W. Robinson, who was also Sidney Rigdon's son-in-law. Therefore, he would
have wanted to be both fair and accurate in portraying the event. In addition, Robinson was at
this time a Colonel in the Danite Band.65This account is also
important for another reason. The "Scriptory Book" accounts of events in Caldwell and Daviess
Counties during the residency of the Prophet and is a source which was used in the preparation of
Volume 3 of the LDS History of the Church.In passages where the
"Scriptory Book" was used, it was often altered to make it appear that Joseph Smith was the
author, rather than Robinson. In addition, the scribes were selective in using the "Scriptory
Book" text for the History of the Church. Some incidents believed to mar the
reputation of the
church or its leaders were not selected for the text of the History of the Church as
published.
But we can, with the "Scriptory Book" extant and even available in published form, find support
for events like the Salt Sermon, which before this tended to be greeted with skepticism because
not witnessed to by a faithful source. The Salt Sermon was mentioned in the "Scriptory Book,"
but not in the Manuscript History of the Church. Thus, it is History of the Church,
Vol.3, talks
about Rigdon's 4th of July address, but does not mention the Salt Sermon. But that makes the
"Scriptory Book" account of the Salt Sermon all the more valuable, since it proves beyond all
doubt now that faithful Latter-day Saints of the period knew about the Sermon every bit as much
as apostates. Here are Robinson's own words:

"I would
mention or
notice something about O. Cowdery David Whitmer Lyman F. Johnson and John Whitmer who
being guilty of base iniquities and that so manifest in the eyes of all men, and being often
entreated would continue in their course seeking the lives of the First Presidency and to
overthrow the Kingdom of God which they once testified of. Prest. Rigdon preached one
Sabbath upon the salt that had lost is savour that is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast
out, and troden [trodden] under foot of men, And the wicked flee when no men pursueth. These
men took warning, and soon they were seen bounding over the prairie like the scape Goat to carry
of [off] their own sins, we have not seen them since, their influence is gone, and they are in a
miserable condition, so also it [is] with all who run from truth to lying Cheating defrauding &
swindling."66

While Robinson's
account does not verify everything that was in the other early accounts of Rigdon's sermon, it
does verify that Rigdon preached the sermon on Matthew 5:13. It also confirms that the intent
was to frighten off the dissenters and that the dissenters were soon on the run. It also confirms
that the sermon was on a Sunday in June 1838, since in the margin by this, running sideways, is
the word "June."67 Since Rigdon is said to have preached the sermon "one
Sabbath" here, it is the final proof that the sermon was preached on June 17, as the majority of
witnesses have it, not June 19 as Whitmer erroneously put it.68 It also clearly
verifies that the First Presidency felt that the dissenters were threatening them and the church (as
Corrill, Peck and Whitmer imply). We have no verification that the dissenters were actually
threatening them, however, beyond the charges themselves, although it is not beyond the realm
of possibility when one considers the sorts of things that happened between Joseph and
dissenters in Kirtland in the year 1837.

Conclusion

What shall we conclude?
Sidney Rigdon preached his Salt Sermon based on Matthew 5:13 on June 17, 1838, a Sunday. In
the words of Daryl Chase, Rigdon's biographer, "It was an insane utterance" which was
"inflammatory and threatening."69 He stated (or implied) that the dissenters
dwelling among the Saints in Far West were salt who had lost their savour, and which ought to,
as B. H. Roberts said, "literally" be trodden under the foot of men (almost all witnesses agree on
this point and none state otherwise). Rigdon also accused them of crimes of various sorts (Peck,
Corrill and the "Scriptory Book").This sermon, which
Reed Peck saw as a "farce acted to frighten these men from the county that they could not be
spies upon their conduct,"70 was, nonetheless, deadly serious and was fully put
into action by the Danites (Avard). Within a short time afterward, the dissenters were fleeing
Caldwell County (Scriptory Book, Whitmer, Corrill, Peck). The additional material in the Reed
Peck manuscript should not be utterly discounted, since he swore to the substance of it under
oath as well. Even though no one but Peck mentioned Judas and gamblers at Vicksburg, we
should not assume that Peck was fabricating. These are precisely the sorts of things that a careful
eye-witness would recall long after that others might overlook. In view of the attitudes and mores
of the day, the Salt Sermon fits the climate of what was happening in that day not only in
Vicksburg, but in Alton, Illinois, St. Louis and in Independence, when the Saints were driven
from Jackson County. Lynching and vigilante organizations in Jacksonian America were as
American as could be and, unfortunately, Sidney Rigdon is simply one more illustration of
religious bigotry in American history.The Salt Sermon of
Sidney Rigdon, thus, is more firmly established historically now than at any time in the past. The
addition of George W. Robinson's witness in the "Scriptory Book" establishes the event on firm
historical footing since at the time Robinson was not an apostate and since he was Rigdon's
son-in-law, a Danite colonel, and First Presidency scribe. Finally, it should be pointed out that all
of these witnesses to the Salt Sermon were either Latter-day Saints then to be later
excommunicated (Avard, Phelps, Peck, Corrill, Cleminson, Harris) or had been (Whitmer) with
the exception of the "Scriptory Book" which may be characterized as a thoroughly loyal Mormon
source from the period. No Gentile ever claimed to have heard the Sermon, which is not
surprising at all. Even now, without the text of his remarks (if Rigdon ever prepared any), we can
reconstruct in a general sense, not only the tenor of Rigdon's remarks, but accurately, though
incompletely, a part of what Rigdon actually said as recalled by a number of eyewitnesses.

NOTES

1. Donna Hill, Joseph
Smith, the First Mormon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1977),
pp. 225-226. Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph
Smith, 2d ed.,
Revised and enlarged (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 217-218. Harold Schindler,
Orrin
Porter Rockwell, 2d Revised Ed. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1983),
pp.26-28.
Stephen C. LeSueur, "The Mormon War: The Struggle to Maintain Civil Order in Northwestern
Missouri in 1838," M.A. Thesis, George Mason University, 1981, p.22. Leland H. Gentry, "The
Danite Band of 1838," Brigham Young University Studies 14, 4 (Summer 1974),
423-424.
2. Matthew 5:13, King
James Version. Of course, Rigdon totally misinterpreted this apparently non-violent passage
from the Sermon on the Mount. No doubt he did so intentionally. This does not speak well of
Rigdon's practice of the art of Biblical exegesis. Nor does it speak well of his practice of the art
of preaching (which at least attempts to explicate what the original meaning of the text was rather
than using it as a pretext for doing something else). The New Translation by Joseph Smith reads
differently from the King James Version here: "Verily, verily I say unto you, I give unto you to
be the salt of the earth: but if the salt shall lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted? The
salt shall thenceforth be good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of
men.
"(Matthew 5:15 in the Inspired Version). Of course, Joseph Smith's rendition of this verse has
absolutely no ancient manuscripts in support. The primitive Greek manuscripts, instead, are in
accord with the old King James Version and various modern translations. See Bruce M. Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971)
p.13. Some LDS scholars have suggested D & C 97:5; 98:1 and 104:4-7 as additional
background for the sermon, but the problem is that none of the eyewitnesses mention anything
other than Matthew 5:13.
3. James B. Allen and
Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Company,
1976), p. 121. They give the date of the Salt Sermon as June 19.
4. Brigham Henry
Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Vol.1
(Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), p. 438. Roberts called the section of the
chapter in which these comments were recorded, "The Error of the Salt Sermon." It is not clear
what in the Salt Sermon Elder Roberts considered to be an error, however, its doctrine or its
results. Roberts also had a footnote at the end of the material quoted here and gave his sources as
J. M. Grant's pamphlet as well as Corrill's history.
5. Harold Schindler,
Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder, Revised Second Edition (Salt
Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1983), p. 27.
6. The Scriptory Book of
Joseph Smith, Jr. -- President of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints In all the World.
Far West April 12th 1838. Microfilm of holograph, LDS Archives, Salt Lake City.
7. Jedediah Morgan
Grant, A Collection of Facts Relative to the Course Taken by Elder Sidney
Rigdon in the States of Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Pennsylvania (Bountiful, Utah:
Restoration
Research, 1984 - reprint of 1844 Philadelphia, Pa. edition), pp. 5-7. See also Andrew F. Ehat,
"Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession
Question," MA Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981, p.190.
8. Grant, Collection of
Facts, pp. 7-13. See also Ehat, "Temple Ordinances," pp. 212-236.
9. Wayne J. Lewis,
"Mormon Land Ownership as a Factor in Evaluating the Extent of Mormon
Settlements and Influence in Missouri 1831-1844," M. A. Thesis, Brigham Young University,
1981, p.114. See also, Grant, Collection of Facts, p.16 for biographical data on
Grant.
10. Grant, A Collection of Facts, p. 3.
11. John C. Bennett,
History of the Saints, or an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston:
Leland & Whiting, 1842). Bennett has a lengthy exposition of his titles and a defense of his
reputation in the beginning of the work as well as the details of his conversion to Mormonism
and his departure.
12. For the Democratic
propensities of the Prophet and his instructions to the Saints at the end of
1841 and beginning of 1842, see Joseph Smith, History of the Church (Salt Lake
City: Deseret
Book Company, 1976) 4:479-480. See also Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on
the
Mississippi (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1965), pp. 225-226. Flanders asserts
that the
Sangamo Journal was a Whig newspaper. See also Donna Hill, Joseph Smith
the First Mormon,
p. 300. A summary of the contents of Bennett's articles in the Sangamo Journal
under subject and
date and other published materials on Bennett and the Mormons may be found in Cecil A.
Snider, A Syllabus on Mormonism in Illinois from the Angle of the Press, (photograph of
typescript in possession of author), pp. 51-62.
13. John C. Bennett, History of the Saints, p.33. "Extract from a Revelation given
to Joseph
Smith, Jr., Jan. 19, 1841."
14. William Harris, with
emendations by a citizen, Mormonism Portrayed; its errors and
absurdities exposed, and the spirit and designs of its authors made manifest. (Warsaw,
Illinois:
Sharp and Gamble, 1841). According to Chad J. Flake (Mormon Bibliography,
pp.53-54, Entry
628), Sharp later claimed to have largely written the book from materials supplied by Harris [See
Warsaw Signal, Sept. 11, 1844]. Sharp probably was involved in the project as
editor if not writer
(for he either emended or wrote).
15. Lewis, "Mormon
Land Ownership," p.118.
16. Thomas C. Sharp,
Warsaw Signal, Sept.11, 1844, quoted in Mormon Bibliography, p.
54.
17. Harris, Mormonism
Portrayed, pp. 32-33. See also Bennett, History of the Saints, p.137. (On
page 140, Bennett stated he was quoting Harris for this portion of his book.)
18. In particular, see
Correspondence, Orders, etc., in relation to the disturbances with the
Mormons; and the evidence given before the Hon. Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Circuit
Court of the State of Missouri, at the Court-House in Richmond, in a criminal court of inquiry,
begun November 12, 1838, on the trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others, for high treason and
other crimes against the state. Fayette, Missouri: Published by Order of the General
Assembly,
1841. See also 26th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Document 189. Showing the
testimony given
before the judge of the fifth judicial circuit of the State of Missouri, on the trial of Joseph Smith,
Jr., and others, for high treason, and other crimes against that State. February 15, 1841. Ordered
to be Printed. The holograph copies of these court records are in the Joint Collection of the
University of Missouri, Western Historical Manuscript Collection--Columbia and State
Historical Society of Missouri Manuscripts, along with additional related material not published
in the documents. John C. Bennett has a lengthy extract from Correspondence and Orders on
pp. 307-340 of his History of the Saints. The material from the "evidence" given
before Judge
King begins on p. 324.
19. Rev. George
Montgomery West, Analysis of the Rev. Dr. West's Lectures and Arguments
Against Infidelity and Other False Theories; to Which are Appended Testimonials of
Approval. (np, March 1842), p. 17.
20. Practical Christian
and Church Chronicle. New Haven, Connecticut, April 16, 1841, p. 63.
Taken from the Episcopal Recorder.
21. Reed Peck, The Reed
Peck Manuscript; An Important Document Written in 1839 Concerning
the Mormon War in Missouri and the Danite Band (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., nd.)
For information concerning the provenance of the original manuscript, see the introduction. The
holograph manuscript was once reportedly in the collection of the late Fawn McKay Brodie,
author of No Man Knows My History.
22. Reed Peck,
pp. 6-7.
23. Reed Peck, pp. 6-7.
24. James B. Allen, and
Glen M. Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, p. l21.
25. The following
sources deal with the story of the lynching of the gamblers: Karen Lynn
Ragsdale, "Kangaroo Justice," unpublished paper supplied by Old Court House Museum, Court
Square, Vicksburg, Mississippi (9 pp); Dunbar Rowland (ed.) Vol. 2, Encyclopedia of
Mississippi
History (1907), vol.2, pp. 860-861. Marion Bragg, "Most Memorable July 5th Saw
Crusade on
Gamblers," Vicksburg Evening Post, July 5, 1971, page 1. Gordon A. Cotton, "Old
Court House
Comment," Vicksburg Sunday Post, February 15, 1981, p.40. Gordon A. Cotton,
"Vigilante
Action in 1835 Described by British Author," Vicksburg Sunday Post, November
30, 1980, p. 36.
Annie Lee Guider, "Vignettes of Vicksburg, Bodley Monument," Vicksburg Sun,
October 1980,
p. 8. Mack Swearingen, "Vicksburg, Miss.," Dictionary of American History, Vol.5,
p. 367.
Richard Hofstader and Michael Wallace, eds., American Violence: A Documentary
History
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), pp. 450-453. See also Nile's Register, August
1 and 8, 1835. Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser, July 14, 1835; Vicksburg Register,
Abstract of Articles
Appearing from June 25, 1835 to Sep.17, 1836 (4 pages); H. S. Fulkerson, Random
Recollections of Early Days in Mississippi (6 pages typescript), Mississippi Dept. of Archives
and History, P.O. Box 571, Jackson, Mississippi 39205.
26. Karen Lynn
Ragsdale, "Kangaroo Justice," p. 1.
27. Ragsdale, p.1. See
also Gordon A. Cotton, "Citizen Kept Bawdy House, Jury Charged,"
Vicksburg Evening Post, Dec. 31, 1978.
28. Marion Bragg, "Most
Memorable July 5th . . .' Vicksburg Evening Post, July 5, 1971, p. 1.
See also Ragsdale, p.2. Ragsdale notes that she has seen the name spelled both as Cabler and as
Calber.
29. Bragg, "Memorable
July 5th . . . ," p. 1. Ragsdale, p. 2.
30. Ragsdale, p. 3.
31. Ragsdale, p. 3.
32. Dunbar Rowland,
Encyclopedia of Mississippi History, vol.2, pp. 860-861.
33. For the ''Secret
Constitution'' of the citizens of Jackson County, Missouri, who, in the fall of
1833, drove the Mormons from Zion across the Missouri River into Clay County, see Warren
Abner Jennings, "Zion is Fled, The Expulsion of the Mormons from Jackson County, Missouri,"
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 1962, pp. 135-137. In the fall of 1838, as the Mormons
were being driven out of Carroll County, Mo., by a vigilante band, they asked Abbott Hancock,
Chairmain of the citizens, by what authority they were being forced to leave. Hancock replied:
"By the authority of Carroll County." LeSueur, "The Mormon War," p. 33.
34. One of the original
100 notices is extant in the collection of the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi. A photographric reproduction was printed in the
Vicksburg Evening Post, July 5, 1971. The text is also quoted by Ragsdale, p.
3.
35. Ragsdale, p. 4.
36. Ragsdale, p. 4.
37. Annie Lee Guider,
"Vignettes of Vicksburg, Bodley Monument," Vicksburg Sun, October
1970, p. 8.
38. L. S. Houghton,
Letter to Mr. Henry Bosworth, July 10, 1835, quoted in Ragsdale, p. 4.
39. Vicksburg Register,
July 9, 1835. See also Ragsdale, p. 4.
40. Bragg, "Memorable
July 5 . . . ," p. 1 and Ragsdale, p. 4.
41. Bragg, p. 1.
42. Rev. Elijah P.
Lovejoy, remarks of November 7, 1837, Alton, Illinois, as quoted in Edwin
Scott Gaustad, A Religious History of America (New York: Harper & Row,
1966), p. 184
[portrait of Love-joy on p. 185]. McIntosh, to whom Lovejoy referred, was Francis McIntosh, "a
free Negro who killed a deputy sheriff in St. Louis, was chained to a tree and burned to death,
April 28, 1836," according to Gaustad.
43. Jared Carter, the
Captain General of the Danites in the early phase, had a brother named
Gideon. Thus, the order was called at that time the "Brother of Gideon." See John E. Thompson,
"The Leadership of the Danite Band in Northern Missouri," unpub. paper read at the annual
meeting of the Mormon History Association, Kansas City, Mo., May 1985, pp. 5-6. See also
Leland H. Gentry, "The Danite Band of 1838," Brigham Young University Studies,
Vol.14, No.
4 (Summer 1974), p. 429. See also LeSueur "The Mormon War," pp. 21-22.
44. The document is in
the testimony of Sampson Avard in the Preliminary Hearing but without
the names of the signers (See Senate Document 189, pp. 6-9). A shortened version
of that text is
given on p. 328 of John C. Bennett, History of the Saints. The full text with the
names of the
signers is found in Leland H. Gentry, "A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri,
1836-1839," Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1965. Correspondence and Orders,
p. 106. See also Ebenezer Robinson, "Items of Personal History," The Return,
October 1889,
p. 147.
45. Correspondence and
Orders, p. 106. Senate Document 189, pp. 6-9. See also LeSueur, "The
Mormon War," p. 22.
46. Peck, p .8.
47. History of the
Church, Vol.3, p. 284.
48. See note 18,
above.
49. Senate Document
189, pp. 20-21.
50. John Corrill, A Brief
History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (St. Louis: for the
author, 1839), p. 30.
51. See John E. Thompson, "The Initial Survey Committee Selected to Appoint Lands for the
Gathering in Daviess County, Missouri (1837-1838)," in Maurice L. Draper and Debra Combs,
eds. Restoration Studies III (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1986), 302-13.
52. Testimony of John
Whitmer and W. W. Phelps as printed in Senate Document 189, pp. 32-33.
53. John Whitmer, John
Whitmer's History (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, nd), p. 33.
54. John E. Thompson,
"The Leadership of the Danites," unpublished paper read at the Mormon
History Association, May 1985.
55. Leland H. Gentry,
"The Danite Band," p. 427.
56. John Cleminson,
Testimony as printed in Senate Document 189, p. 15.
57. Thompson,
"Leadership of the Danites." See also Gentry, pp .425-428.
58. Joseph Smith, letter
dated December 16, 1838, as printed in History of the Church, Vol.3,
p. 231. See also Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake
City: Deseret
Book, 1984), pp. 374-382.
59. Stephen C. LeSueur,
in "The Mormon War," p. 158, writes: "Gentry concludes that Joseph
Smith and his counselors were largely unaware of the Danites militant and lawless nature.
Recently discovered evidence from loyal Mormon sources demonstrates, however, that Smith
and his counselors knew and approved of the activities of the Danite band. Mormon sources also
show that the Danites played a prominent and influential role among the Mormons during this
period." For more on the relationship of the Danites and the First Presidency, see John F.
Thompson, "A Chronology of Danite Meetings in Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Missouri July-September
1838," Restoration 4, 1 (January 1985); and Thompson, "The Leadership of the
Danites in
Northern Missouri," unpublished paper, pp. 9-12. Of course, for a different view, see Gentry,
pp. 442-449.
60. Sampson Avard,
Testimony, in Senate Document 189, p. 9.
61. Peck, pp. 9-10. See
also Thompson, "Danite Leadership," unpublished paper, pp. 5-6.
62. LeSueur, "The
Mormon War," pp. 21-22. Gentry, "A History of the Latter-day Saints in
Northern Missouri," p. 317. Gentry, "Danite Band," pp. 422-426. Allen and Leonard, Story
of
the
Latter-day Saints, p. 121. Thompson, "Chronology of Danite Meetings," p. 11
63. See note 44. Avard
was the first signature on the document. Avard testified Rigdon drafted
the document. (Senate Document 189, p.6). It may be that Avard himself drew up the document
as Gentry suggests in "The Danite Band," p. 424. Or, as Stephen LeSueur argues, it could be that
Rigdon wrote the document but chose to obscure that fact. (See "The Mormon War," p. 22).
Gentry is undoubtedly on the mark when he stated that a number of the signatories were Danites
("Danite Band," p. 425). That connection needs to be more fully examined in future studies.
64. For information
relevant to the date of this passage, see John E. Thompson, "Spring Hill and
Adam-Ondi-Ahman," Restoration 3, 4 (October 1984). See also Lyndon W. Cook,
The
Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Provo, Utah: Seventy's Mission Bookstore,
1981),
pp. 228-229; 333-334.
65. Peck, p. 11. Elders'
Journal, August 1838. Scriptory Book, August 7, 1838. Gentry, "Danite
Band," pp. 441-442. See also Thompson, "Leadership of the Danites," unpublished paper, p.
3ff.
66. The Joseph Smith
Scriptory Book, p.47; June. See also transcription in H. Michael
Marquardt, Joseph Smith's 1838-1839 Diaries (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm
Co., 1982),
p. 10.
67. The Joseph Smith
Scriptory Book, microfilm of holograph, p. 47. This notation is not in the
Marquardt transcription, however, since it would have been difficult to portray such a marginal
note accurately in a typescript.
68. Scriptory Book,
p. 47. Marquardt, 1838-1839 Diaries, p. 10. See also LeSueur, "Mormon
War," pp. 22-23. See also Gentry, "Danite Band," p. 423.
69. Daryl Chase, quoted
in Leland Gentry, "A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern
Missouri," pp. 160-161.
70. Peck, p. 7.